RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

rowan wrote:

Puja wrote:
I suspect it may having been "Nothing to soil your diapers about kiddies" line that might've been considered inflammatory, rather than your speculation about the number of players in a touring squad. But that's just a guess.


Don't NZ always use this tour as an opportunity to try out some fringe players anyway? Looking at your schedule, I'm sure there's plenty of room for rotation, especially since you'll be playing a shadow XV vs the Barbarians.

Puja

You mean in response to bitchy remarks about my response to bitchy remarks. & if anyone found "Nothing to soil your diapers about kiddies" offensive in response to bitchy remarks, when contrasted with lighthearted remarks about my own vintage, they really are fragile, juvenile, hypocritical cowards.

Go on, I'll bite. What is the "bitchy remark" which predated the diapers comment?

Puja

rowan wrote:We'll never know how long Lomu would've stayed good for without the illness, regrettably. Harty misused him at the 99 RWC but he was still at the peak of his powers in his mid-20s, as we saw in that magnificent test against Australia at the turn of the century. Don't remember too much about him after that, as I moved to Spain that year and thereafter began to focus more on the tier 3 stuff than tier 1 - in between World Cups. Campese is probably the best example of an outside back with longevity, though he was a relative lightweight by today's standards and spent the final years of his career getting crunched by NZ's new generation of beefy Pacific Islanders. I still remember his dreadful attempt at tackling Inga the winger one year! But, yes, Campo is probably still regarded as the greatest, and not least because he was a danger man right into his early 30s.

rowan wrote:No, you're the racist and that's the basis of your problem with my posts - I'm not a racist apologist for imperialist war crimes. Beefy is defined as muscular and robust - a compliment in the books of anyone who understands the English language. So it is very clear you are outraged by anyone complimenting Pacific Islanders because you have a racist hatred of them. Rather ironic, also, that you and your ilk spend so much time in denial over the racist crimes of a country whose language you don't even understand properly. Ignorance is the basis of evil.

Puja wrote:

rowan wrote: You mean in response to bitchy remarks about my response to bitchy remarks. & if anyone found "Nothing to soil your diapers about kiddies" offensive in response to bitchy remarks, when contrasted with lighthearted remarks about my own vintage, they really are fragile, juvenile, hypocritical cowards.

Go on, I'll bite. What is the "bitchy remark" which predated the diapers comment?

Puja

rowan wrote:If you can't read, that's not my problem. Nothing more cowardly than those who can't fight their own battles either.

rowan wrote:& Puja thinks to himself: "Gee, what a very clever fellow I am!"

rowan wrote:If you can't read, that's not my problem. Nothing more cowardly than those who can't fight their own battles either.

Puja wrote:So that's a no on you being able to cite the "bitchy remark" that allegedly provoked you then, is it?

Puja

rowan wrote:& Puja thinks to himself: "Gee, what a very clever fellow I am!"

rowan wrote:Better still, don't start it.

rowan wrote:You've just smugly admitted on another thread that you were trolling. Doh!

Puja wrote:

rowan wrote:Better still, don't start it.

"But Sir, he started it!" doesn't work quite so well if you're then unable to cite the "bitchy remark" that provoked you.

Still, your point is made Mike, I'll put the board out of its misery and leave it here.

Puja

rowan wrote:Still, your point is made Mike, I'll put the board out of its misery and leave it here.

Puja

Nice to see you're a man of your word

morepork wrote:Richard Kahui